Furthering transgender inclusion in the workplace: advancing a new model of allyship intentions and perceptions

Abstract

There remains a significant knowledge gap in HRM regarding the inclusion of transgender (henceforth ‘trans’) workers. We examine and apply the emerging concept of allyship (a specific form of active support and advocacy for minority groups) to trans workers, and in doing so we advance a new model of allyship intentions and perceptions. We test our model across two studies. The first extends theorising on perceived diversity and inclusion climate (PDIC) and social dominance orientation (SDO) to explain how non-trans workers can exhibit trans allyship intentions. When non-trans workers were presented with a scenario of a co-worker disclosing their trans identity, we find that SDO is negatively related with allyship intentions, yet PDIC moderates this relationship, such that the negative impact of SDO is buffered by the positive influence of PDIC. The second study builds upon theorising on psychological safety and authenticity to explain how perceived allyship facilitates the wellbeing of trans workers. We find, in a survey of trans workers, that perceived allyship is positively associated with psychological safety and authenticity at work; and is indirectly related to work engagement via the former and to life satisfaction via the latter. We provide critical insights into how allyship can be advanced to understand and support trans inclusion.

Keywords:

• Transgender
• LGBT
• allies
• allyship
• well-being
• diversity management

Introduction

Although lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) workplace inclusion has progressed significantly, there remains a significant gap for transgender¹ (henceforth ‘trans’) workers compared with lesbian, gay and bisexual counterparts (Beauregard et al., 2018; Ozturk & Tatli, 2016). Many workplaces remain far from trans-inclusive, with many employers unaware of the need to act, or unclear of how to create a trans-inclusive workplace (Gut, Arevshatian, & Beauregard et al., 2018). This is concerning; half of trans people have hidden their identity at work, fearing discrimination (Stonewall, 2018). Human resource management (HRM) professionals are therefore trying to improve support and protection for trans workers (Marvell et al., 2017). Leading professional bodies such as the UK’s Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the US’s Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) are more visibly supporting their membership to be more trans inclusive (CIPD, 2018; SHRM, 2020). One approach has been promoting allyship programmes that help trans workers access support within their organisation (Stonewall, 2020).

Allyship is a practice generally attributed to those that occupy one or more non-minority positions, connoting active support and advocacy to a stigmatised minority (Salter & Migliaccio, 2019). When effective and oriented towards social justice, its purpose is to enact positive change and challenge problematic norms and behaviours (Ragins, 2008). Nonetheless, allyship must be acknowledged as one element of a constellation of factors - including structural and political change - that is needed to tackle transphobia and oppression of trans people (Sumerau et al., 2021) as transphobia can manifest in various individual, structural, and institutionalised forms (Jamel, 2017)².

Although trans allyship and allyship more broadly has gained momentum in diversity and inclusion practice (LGBT Foundation, 2019), there is limited research within the HRM domain that explores its potential. Despite emerging evidence about how/why people may identify as an ally and what may constitute allyship (e.g., Carlson et al., 2020; Rostosky et al., 2015), little is known about its potential antecedents and outcomes. The nascent knowledge base suggests, on one hand, that allyship, in general, can be facilitated via organisational (such as formal ERGs and ally networks – McNulty et al., 2018) as well as individual (such as prosocial motives and self-efficacy - Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019) characteristics. And, on the other, allyship can lead to beneficial outcomes, such as personal growth for the ally themselves (Rostosky et al., 2015) and positive changes to others’ attitudes and behaviours towards the minority group (Salter & Migliaccio, 2019). However, there remains a lack of coherent frameworks, or specific empirical research, that examine antecedents and outcomes, particularly for trans workers. Our paper adds to this body of knowledge by a) differentiating intentions and perceptions of allyship to examine ally behaviour as well as the lived experience of allyship, b) focusing on trans workers and trans allyship, and c) examining potential mediating mechanisms and moderating factors.

Overall, the aim of our paper is to shed light onto key potential antecedents and outcomes of trans allyship so that we can better understand how best to support trans inclusion in the workplace (Beauregard et al., 2018). Our paper provides new insights by developing and testing an initial theoretical framework of trans allyship across two studies: the first considers potential antecedents (study one) and the second examines key outcomes (study two) - see Figure 1 for an illustration of our framework. By utilising a two-study approach (one focusing on allyship intentions of non-trans workers: the other examining trans workers’ perceptions of allyship in their organisation) we provide a more comprehensive framework that integrates relevant explanatory theories. Each study will now be outlined.

Figure 1. Illustration of our conceptual model over studies one and two.

.

The first study, on the potential antecedents of trans allyship, extends theorising on social dominance orientation (SDO; Aiello et al., 2013; Ho et al., 2015) and diversity and inclusion climate (Nishii, 2013; Pugh et al., 2008) to examine how diversity and inclusion climate perceptions can interact with an individual’s level of SDO (Avery, 2011). More specifically, we test whether allyship intentions can still be facilitated with high individual levels of SDO, but only when there is a strong perceived diversity and inclusion climate (PDIC). In doing so, we illustrate how trans allyship intentions can be increased at the individual level and clarify how organisational factors can reduce the likelihood of individual biases against trans people from being enacted within the workplace (Beauregard et al., 2018; Ozturk & Tatli, 2016).

In the second study, on key outcomes of trans allyship, we explain how perceived allyship can promote the psychological safety and authenticity at work for trans workers, providing much-needed evidence of the potential effects of allyship on minority group members themselves (Brooks & Edwards, 2009; Salter & Migliaccio, 2019). We show how psychological safety and authenticity at work act as different mediating mechanisms, linking perceived allyship with individual-level outcomes, based on the theoretical foundations of psychological safety as a core psychological condition of engagement (May et al., 2004) and authenticity as a critical experience underpinning life satisfaction (Sutton, 2020). Thus, we clarify how allyship could lead to different outcomes, providing more accurate recommendations for HRM practice.

The emerging HRM research base on transgender workers

In recent years, HRM scholarship has made important progress in understanding experiences of LGBT employees along a few main themes of activity illustrated in Figure 2. For example, there is evidence that the presence of LGBT specific HR-related policies helps promote firm performance (e.g., Pichler et al., 2018), yet there is also a need to understand the subjective perception of these policies by LGBT people themselves (Fletcher & Everly, 2021) as well as examine the broader climate of support within the organisation (e.g., Webster et al., 2018). Other related studies have highlighted the different institutional and organisational factors that may influence the adoption of LGBT friendly policies (e.g., Everly & Schwarz, 2015), whilst a more specific strand has started to explore work-life balance policies for LGBT employees (e.g., Stavrou & Ierodiakonou 2018). Other emergent strands explore the broader context of employee voice mechanisms, with some focusing on how employee resource groups (ERGs) provide voice and representation to LGBT workers (e.g., McFadden & Crowley-Henry, 2018), particularly those who are expatriates (e.g., McNulty et al., 2018). As Triana et al. (2021, p. 182) review of discrimination and diversity research in HRM highlight “while there is not as much research on LGBTQ³ diversity…research on LGBTQ employees has grown in recent years…[and] will likely continue to grow”.

Figure 2. Illustration of themes within a) HRM literature on LGBT workers, and b) psychological/sociological literature on allyship, in relation to trans allyship. Note: LGB(t) denotes the focus is primarily on sexual orientation (LGB) and often neglects or subsumes gender identity/transgender workers within the broader LGBT category.

However, in reviewing the current state of the HRM literature, we find that trans individuals are often excluded, e.g., Stavrou and Solea (2020) compare heterosexual and lesbian/gay/bisexual but not trans employees’ work attitudes and experiences; or are underrepresented, e.g., Webster et al.’s (2018) meta-analysis of workplace support and LGBT employees’ work outcomes only include trans people in five of 27 sampled studies. Only a small number focus specifically on transgender workers and how HR and wider diversity management practices can promote the inclusion of gender minorities. This highlights Beauregard et al. (2018) concern that trans-specific foci are notably absent from LGBT related HRM research. Generally, the limited literature on trans employees highlights entrenched societal and organisational transphobia (Gut et al., 2018). As a result, trans employees may ‘mask’ their identity to avoid harassment (Ozturk & Tatli, 2016). Tensions have intensified following conspicuous anti-trans rhetoric in public discourse (Councilor, 2021). Issues can also arise due to a lack of understanding and training. For example, policy-practice gaps may emerge due to diversity professionals’ varying approaches, managerial resistance, and lack of resources (Marvell et al., 2017). However, there are pockets of good practice and recommendations for development (Gut et al., 2018). For example, Bozani et al. (2019) point towards Government policy championing inclusive workplace strategies and the importance of furnishing HRM professionals with practical advice to boost trans employees’ self-esteem and self-respect. Ozturk and Tatli (2016) recommend building HRM expertise capacity to move towards fuller trans equity. Likewise, Marvell et al. (2017) discuss the critical role personalised, confidential, and empathetic HRM practitioner approaches when supporting trans employees. Where necessary, these should be informed by expert third parties.

Overall, the current state of HRM research on trans workers is limited yet highlights the potential importance of HRM in creating supportive conditions to engender trans inclusion. One way that HRM practitioners can create these conditions is through the training, development, and encouragement of trans-inclusive allyship within the organisation (Salter & Migliaccio, 2019). Allyship, in reference to LGBT workplace inclusion, first came to prominence in Ragins (2008) seminal work on disclosure in-and-out of work. She broadly argued that those acting as allies build trust and provide socio-emotional as well as instrumental support, which can help facilitate disclosure and acceptance of invisible stigmas. However, within the literature reviewed above, there is a woeful lack of empirical examination of the role of allyship for LGBT workers, and only four papers (that we have found) refer to the concept; two of which only made a sweeping comment or minor connection. Despite this, McNulty et al. (2018) qualitative study found that ‘Ally Networks’, as part of a broader ERG remit around LGBT inclusion for expatriates, could facilitate “an informal voice dynamic for LGBT employees promoting advocacy, equity and inclusion” (p. 843). Echoing these findings, Webster et al.’s (2018, p. 205) review “highlights the potentially untapped power of allies” and calls for more research on the role of allies to help clarify the effects of active versus passive forms of support for LGBT workers. Therefore, although allyship is an emerging concept within HRM research, it offers a fruitful avenue to expand the nascent literature on transgender inclusion as one element of a broader agenda.

Conceptualising allyship and its application to transgender workers

The wider psychological and sociological literature (see Figure 2) explores allyship across different domains, especially race and racism (Bourke, 2020; Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019; Radke et al., 2020; Sue et al., 2019; Williams & Sharif, 2021) although other foci include men’s role in fighting sexism and gender-based violence (Carlson et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2018) and LGBT justice (Pickett & Tucker, 2020; Ragins, 2008). However, trans advocacy can be muted or absent in the latter. Generally, the term ally has been defined as “a person who is a member of the ‘dominant’ or ‘majority’ group who works to end oppression in his or her personal and professional life through support of, and as an advocate for, the oppressed population” (Washington & Evans, 1991, p. 195). Whilst recognising that allies may sometimes occupy partial and contingent positions of power in society - given people occupy an amalgam of group identities (Crenshaw, 1991) and allies are likely to have other marginalised identities (Williams & Sharif, 2021) - they may, nonetheless, have access to potent resources that can be quickly mobilised (Cheng et al., 2018). Thus, allies are one part of the broader social justice agenda because they can have a desire to change the status quo (Rostosky et al., 2015); of relevance to this paper is the status quo surrounding a cissexist societal structure and culture (Sumerau & Grollman, 2018).

In articulating what leads people towards allyship, the literature highlights positive antecedents such as a desire to enact positive change as well as challenge problematic norms and structures (Ragins, 2008). Additionally, Erskine and Bilimoria (2019) note that prosocial motives and self-efficacy are important driving factors whilst Radke et al. (2020) highlight how identification with politicised groups and moral beliefs lie at the core of collective action. However, some motivations conflict with marginalised individuals’ or groups’ priorities, hindering positive social change (Carlson et al., 2020). Indeed, a person’s perception of their own allyship may be a poor predictor of inclusion from marginalised people’s perspective (Warren et al., 2021). It is critical to remember allies may occupy positions of power with their own ulterior motivations which can create ‘tension points’ (Dierckx et al., 2021). In such cases, the reciprocal or transformative potential of allyship can be supplanted by a co-opted version which centres the ‘ally’ or allows them to be extractive, performative and/or paternalistic (Radke et al., 2020; Sumerau et al., 2021).

Accordingly, the literature emphasises that allyship should be actively practised. This means transcending passive support or being ‘knowledgeable’ (Ragins, 2008) and instead being “an accomplice in conducting activism” (Pickett & Tucker, 2020, p. 297) through positive action and advocacy with (not ‘on’) minority group members, even though they may be strangers (Salter & Migliaccio, 2019). Continual actions within everyday interactions help sustain this sense of allyship (Carlson et al., 2020). As such, allyship can be enacted regardless of legal protections (Salter & Migliaccio, 2019). Transferrable practices and principles include recognition of privilege, embracing discomfort, maintaining genuine relationships with members of oppressed groups, turning words to action, and taking on the responsibilities and risks of social justice work (Bourke, 2020). Challenging microaggressions – covert slights – is also critical to avoid adverse effects for minoritised groups (Williams & Sharif, 2021). However, it is crucial to acknowledge that allyship which prioritises individual behaviours over targeting institutional and societal change is unlikely to be particularly effective, given the structural nature of inequalities as they relate to race, gender, and sexuality (Sumerau et al., 2021). Therefore, it is not particularly surprising that a brief experimental study aiming to instil allyship by asking participants to read facts versus myths about the LGBT community and then respond to a heterosexist blog with pro-LGBT statements did not immediately change prejudicial attitudes or the propensity for social justice behaviour (Perrin et al., 2014)

Importantly, adapting to these processes may involve “internal and painful self-reckoning, and a commitment to external action” (Sue et al., 2019, p. 132). This may be challenging for those with little to no relationship with marginalised people or who are uncomfortable with activism, yet little formal training exists (Ji, 2007). Despite this, allies do report benefits that transcend personal development and growth; for example, Rostosky et al. (2015) find that self-identified allies emphasise outcomes associated with educating, confronting, and changing others’ behaviours whilst Radke et al. (2020) note that out-group motivated allyship can induce behaviours which put the needs of disadvantaged groups first. More crucially, there is some evidence that effective allyship - enacted as activism and collective action - can have positive outcomes for disadvantaged groups, including career advancement and wellbeing (Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019).

Very few studies look at trans allyship as a specific domain or connect this to the HRM literature. Brooks and Edwards (2009) find that within the broader LGBT community, many aspects are aligned with what allies themselves identified, such as inclusion and equity, yet LGBT individuals particularly want an ally to help them feel psychologically safe at work. However, Forbes and Ueno (2020) argue that some view allyship as being attuned to ‘everyday’ interpersonal activism, whereas others focus on institutional activism that supports the wider LGBT community. In this research, we focus on everyday interpersonal dimension because our interest is on the psychological experiences of trans workers, although we recognise that this is one part of the picture. Although there is a lack of research on the effects of allyship for trans workers, there is some indication that allyship from colleagues can be an important option for a trans person to talk about their experiences and to seek out informal support (Marvell et al., 2017).

In sum, the literature on allyship is a diffuse domain. Although there is some focus on allyship in relation to LGBT communities more broadly, trans specific allyship is largely absent; there are no specific definitions, operationalisations, or frameworks for trans allyship. Despite this, there is some consensus that allyship means actively supporting and standing up for minority group members, where there is a mutual agreement that the person is an ally to the minority group. Therefore, in this paper, we focus on allyship intentions and perceptions in the form of providing active support to trans workers, being willing to stand up for trans workers, and being identified as an ally to trans workers.

Study one: examining the antecedents of trans allyship

The role of social dominance orientation (SDO) and perceived diversity and inclusion climate (PDIC)

SDO (Ho et al., 2015) refers to individual attitudes towards group-based inequality. Those high in SDO show strong support for overt oppression and behaviours that act to subordinate groups (dominance) as well as a preference for social hierarchies and subtle ideologies/policies that maintain such hierarchies (anti-egalitarianism). Social dominance theory (SDT; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) views SDO as a motivational ‘goal-schema’ that promotes a ‘cold, callous, and cruel’ attitude that promotes harsh power tactics within the workplace, resulting in maintaining the in-group’s dominance in the social hierarchy (Aiello et al., 2013). Applying SDT to the current research, we position heterosexual, cisgender⁴ people as the main dominant ingroup in the social hierarchy whereas trans people represent a particularly important subordinate group due to them representing a quantitatively small group that do not conform with heteronormative, cisnormative norms. Given the wider landscape of transphobia and the particularly marginalised position of trans people in society (see previous sections and supplementary information document), the role of SDO is therefore important.

SDO has been utilised to understand individual factors related to prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviour towards trans individuals. Applying an SDT perspective (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), trans people are considered a minority out-group. Therefore, those high in SDO are likely to view trans individuals as inferior and subordinate and consider efforts to support their inclusion unimportant. Although few studies have been conducted, there is some evidence that those high in SDO show higher levels of gender minority stigma and prejudice than those low in SDO (Ching et al., 2020; Puckett et al., 2020). This may be because those high in SDO tend to have strong gender essentialist beliefs, i.e., fixed binary sex-based assumptions (Ching et al., 2020), and are unlikely to be fully aware of how their life is embedded within power structures (Puckett et al., 2020). In sum, we predict that those high in SDO are less willing to enact trans allyship than those low in SDO.

Hypothesis 1: SDO will be negatively related with trans allyship intentions

Research emphasises the importance of creating and maintaining an organisational climate that encourages employees to understand and explore their differences, and to commit to equality of opportunity alongside educating each other to develop greater inter-personal/group awareness (Holmes et al., 2021; James et al., 2008). This can be described as a climate for diversity (i.e., encouraging heterogeneity and minimising prejudice and discrimination; Pugh et al., 2008) and inclusion (i.e., encouraging the understanding and expression of different identities; Nishii, 2013). Although diversity and inclusion are distinct, both “incorporate positive practices while recognising the need for institutional mechanisms for addressing discrimination and prejudice that occur” (Shore et al., 2018, p. 182). In a recent meta-analysis, Holmes et al. (2021) advocates for capturing both diversity and inclusion climate dimensions, as only focusing on inclusion climate may omit important aspects of demographic diversity related to structural and cultural disadvantage. Conversely, only focusing on diversity climate may not reflect the extent to which organisations try to make employees feel a sense of belonging and uniqueness through integrating their differences. Therefore, we define PDIC in our study as connoting: i) perceptions of the organisation’s policies and practices that aim to recognise and foster demographic diversity, and ii) perceptions of the organisation as one that emphasises the effective integration of all employees’ different backgrounds.

A strong diversity and inclusion climate motivates employees to engage in supportive and helping behaviours to others, particularly to those from marginalised groups (Avery, 2011; McKay et al., 2015). This is because such a climate helps determine what is normative (un)acceptable behaviour within an organisation, and what behaviours are rewarded vis-a-vis punished (James et al., 2008). A strong diversity and inclusion climate shared across an organisation therefore provides incentives and social acceptance to employees for engaging in, and demonstrating, allyship. Related research shows that when subordinates and their managers both perceive a strong diversity climate, employees are incentivised and rewarded when they align with pro-diversity norms and values (McKay et al., 2009). In our current study, we examine how individuals’ own perception of the organisation’s diversity and inclusion climate interact with their level of SDO. We focus on individual perceptions of climate rather than shared or aggregate perceptions because we want to focus on the psychological mechanisms that may underpin allyship at the individual level. Holmes et al. (2021) meta-analysis highlights that examining psychological, individual level perceptions is still an important area of research.

Drawing on trait and value activation theorising, a perceived weak climate for diversity and inclusion could act to enable and embolden an individual’s inclinations to act on their intrinsic opposition to diversity (Avery, 2011). This is because a strong perceived diversity and inclusion climate indicates to the individual that their work environment endorses and rewards hierarchy-attenuating norms, values, and behaviours (Shore et al., 2018). As those high in SDO prefer environments that enhance rather than reduce social hierarchies, these individuals will be more likely to be motivated to verify their view of themselves by behaving in ways that maintain the social hierarchy when they perceive that the organisational climate is congruent with a hierarchy-enhancing belief system (Aiello et al., 2018). As social norms can have particularly strong effects on behavioural intentions (Ajzen, 1991), we predict that those high in SDO will be less willing to enact trans allyship when PDIC (i.e., the social norm) is weak and more willing to enact trans allyship when PDIC (i.e., the social norm) is strong.

Hypothesis 2: PDIC moderates the negative relationship between SDO and trans allyship intentions such that the negative relationship will be stronger when PDIC is low.

Method

Participants and procedure

Study one examines trans allyship intentions. A prototypical ally would be a majority ingroup member in society (Washington & Evans, 1991). However, in practice trans allies can be people who are also from another minority group, such as lesbian, gay, or bisexual people or those from an ethnic minority group. To be more precise about our sample, we focus on heterosexual, cisgender workers within the UK as the main majority group differentiated from trans identities. A total of 225 heterosexual, cisgender workers completed an online survey via the Prolific data collection platform, where they received payment of £0.63. After removing 16 individuals based on incomplete data, the final sample is 209 respondents, representing a 93 percent completion rate. Of these, 57 percent are female, 85 percent are white, and 45 percent had managerial responsibility. The average age is 35 years (SD = 10 years), the average organisational tenure is 7 years (SD = 7 years). Around 60 percent are employed permanently full-time, and a range of sectors and occupational groups are represented.

Measures⁵

SDO: Ho et al. (2015) eight item SDO measure assesses both dominance (e.g., ‘An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom’) and anti-egalitarianism (e.g., ‘It is unjust to try to make groups equal’) dimensions of social dominance orientation using a seven-point (1-strongly disagree to 7-strongly agree) Likert scale. Inter-item reliability is α = .84.

PDIC: An eight item measure using a seven point (1-strongly disagree to 7-strongly agree) Likert scale combines four items from the diversity climate scale by Pugh et al. (2008), e.g., ‘My organisation makes it easy for people from diverse backgrounds to fit in and be accepted’; and four items from the integration of differences subscale of the inclusion climate measure by Nishii (2013), e.g., ‘In my workplace, employees are valued for who they are as people, not just for the jobs that they fill’. Inter-item reliability is α = .92. We combine these two scales to capture core aspects of perceived diversity climate focussed on organisational policies and practices that foster and maintain diversity, whilst eliminating discrimination, as well as core aspects of perceived inclusion climate focussed on social integration of all employees within the organisation (Holmes et al., 2021).

Trans Allyship Intentions: Respondents were instructed to read a realistic work-based scenario and provide honest and truthful reactions. The scenario describes a department manager’s email informing staff that a work colleague would like people to know they are trans and will be changing the way they present themselves in the workplace (see supplementary information document for full description). After reading the vignette, participants rated statements about how they felt about the situation. Within this section, three items capture trans allyship intentions, adopting a seven-point (1-strongly disagree to 7-strongly agree) Likert scale: ‘I would stand up for this trans person to others in my organisation’, ‘At work, I would give my full support to this trans person’, and ‘I would be a visible ally to this trans person in my organisation’. Inter-item reliability is α = .93.

Control Variables: We controlled for: i) social desirability, using the 13-item Marlowe-Crowne scale (Reynolds, 1982) where participants answer statements using a true/false scale e.g., ‘I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings’ (α = .69); ii) gender (0- male, 1- female); and iii) age (in years). These variables have been found to relate to prejudicial attitudes towards trans people (e.g., Norton & Herek, 2013), and are controlled for in similar studies (e.g., Van Borm et al., 2020).

Analytical strategy

Hierarchical multiple regressions are conducted using SPSS version 25 and simple slope analyses were performed (Dawson, 2014). The predictor and moderator variables are standardised to reduce the likelihood of multicollinearity; the control and criterion variables in the analysis remain unstandardised.

Results

Descriptive statistics and preliminary testing

Table 1 summarises the descriptive statistics for the study one variables. We test whether the constructs of SDO, PDIC, and trans allyship intentions are distinct from each other. A CFA finds that the three-factor model is a good fit of the data⁶: χ² (149) = 310.73, p < .001; RMSEA = .07, CFI = .93, SRMR = .05.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics (study one).

Variable	Mean	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.
1. Gender (0- male, 1 – female)	0.57	0.50	–
2. Age (in years)	34.95	10.48	-.01	–
3. Social Desirability	0.55	0.22	-.03	.11	(.69)
4. SDO	2.11	0.88	-.29***	.05	.11	(.84)
5. PDIC	5.15	1.03	.18**	-.12	.18**	-.09	(.92)
6. Trans Allyship Intentions	5.87	1.14	.23**	-.17*	-.01	-.46***	.29***	(.93)

Note: N = 209.

* p < .05,.

** p < .01,.

*** p < .001. Reliability estimates in parentheses.

Hypothesis testing

The results of the regression analysis (see Table 2) show that the model explains just under a third of variance in trans allyship intentions. Once control variables are accounted for (see step 2), we find SDO is negatively linked to trans allyship intentions (B = −.49, p < .001), thus supporting hypothesis 1. In step 3 we find that PDIC is positively related to trans allyship intentions (B = .26, p < .001), and in step 4 the interaction between SDO and PDIC is found to be positive and significant (B = .13, p < .05). The interaction explains an additional 2 percent of variance in trans allyship intentions. A simple slopes analysis (Dawson, 2014) finds that the negative relationship between SDO and trans allyship intentions is stronger when PDIC is low (B = −.61, t = 6.41, p < .001) than when PDIC is high (B = −.34, t = 3.49, p = .001). Figure 3 illustrates this interaction. Overall, these findings support hypothesis 2.

Figure 3. Illustration of the interaction between SDO and PDIC on trans allyship intentions (study one).

Table 2. Multiple regression analysis for predicting trans allyship intentions (study one).

Regression Steps	Unstandardized β (SE)	Standardized β	Lower Bound CI	Upper Bound CI
Step 1: Control model
Gender	.53 (.15)***	.23	.226	.835
Age	-.02 (.01)*	-.17	-.033	-.004
Social Desirability	.08 (.36)	-.02	-.625	.781
R²	.08
ΔR²	.08
ΔF	6.13***
Step 2: Predictor
SDO	-.49 (.07)***	-.43	-.633	-.345
R²	.25
ΔR²	.17
ΔF	44.79***
Step 3: Moderator
PDIC	.26 (.07)***	.23	.119	.398
R²	.29
ΔR²	.05
ΔF	13.32***
Step 4: Interaction
SDO*PDIC	.13 (.07)*	.12	.006	.261
R²	.31
ΔR²	.02
ΔF	4.28*

Note: N = 209.

* p < .05,.

** p < .01,.

*** p < .001.

Study two: Examining the outcomes of trans allyship

The indirect links with work engagement and life satisfaction via psychological safety and authenticity at work

Study two explores trans workers’ perceptions of allyship in their organisation. There is a connection between the intentions of the ally and the perceptions of minority group members because allyship represents “an enhanced form of resource exchange” (Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019, p. 328) between ally and the minority group member. Recent evidence suggests that both the ally’s intentions and the minority group member’s perceptions relate to each other, yet it is particularly the latter person’s perception that is most critical (Warren et al., 2021). Given the scarcity of research examining the perceptions and experiences of the minority group, we aim to develop a stronger understanding of the role of a trans person’s perceptions of allyship in shaping their psychological experiences at work and broader sense of wellbeing. We now turn to explaining how perceived allyship can facilitate these outcomes via psychological safety and authenticity at work.

Perceived allyship focuses attention on the workplace relational context whereby it enables trans workers to feel supported, valued, and respected within the organisation (Thoroughgood et al., 2021), such that allyship builds trust-based relationships between members of the stigmatised group and those outside of that group (Ragins, 2008). This experience of active support signals that they are in a psychologically safe environment where they can take more interpersonal risks and feel able to voice their ideas and concerns (Brooks & Edwards, 2009; Edmondson, 1999). Indeed, Johnson and Peitri (2020) find that when allyship is perceived and endorsed, it signals organisational identity-safety for minority group members.

As psychological safety is a critical psychological condition for a worker to fully engage with their work role (May et al., 2004), it is therefore likely that allyship is indirectly related with work engagement via psychological safety. Work engagement is a fulfilling psychological state of being emotionally, cognitively, and physically involved in one’s work activities, and as such it is an important to facilitate because it is linked with a range of desirable individual and organisational outcomes, such as positive work attitudes and higher quality job performance (Fletcher et al., 2020; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). Psychological safety has been shown to be a mediating process linking the relational context, particularly perceived support from co-workers, with the experience of engagement (Frazier et al., 2017; May et al., 2004). Allyship may connote aspects of a holding environment that help trans workers feel a sense of secure attachment and belonging - as such reflecting a high quality, psychologically safe relational context that helps the individual feel able to express their voice and their self in ways that enable their full engagement in their work (Kahn & Heaphy, 2013; Salter & Migliaccio, 2019). This is underscored by social exchange explanations, whereby engagement is enhanced when the individual employee and other parties in the organisation are invested in a mutually reciprocal exchange of socio-emotional resources in the long term (Bailey et al., 2017). In this case, allyship provides trans workers with a work context that is rich in social resources (Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019), as indicated by strong perceptions of psychological safety, which in turn facilitates reciprocation in the form of engaging in work activities (Frazier et al., 2017).

Hypothesis 3: Perceived trans allyship is indirectly related to work engagement via psychological safety

Additionally, a trans worker who perceives allyship within the organisation will feel more comfortable in authentically expressing their gender identity at work because they will feel that their trans identity has been validated and accepted (Martinez et al., 2017; Marvell et al., 2017). Being authentic in the workplace is a subjective experience of feeling that one can behave and act within one’s work environment in ways that are congruent with one’s true self, i.e., the extent to which the person experiences consistency between their external actions and behaviours and their inner values and beliefs (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014).

Conversely, if allyship is not perceived to be present – i.e., the relational context is perceived to be unsupportive or not representative/inclusive of a diverse range of gender identities – a trans person may decide to conceal important aspects of their identity because the perceived risk outweighs the perceived benefit (Beauregard et al., 2018; Ozturk & Tatli, 2016). Concealment incurs a psychological cost for the individual as constantly managing (and suppressing) the expression of their identity expends significant energy, leading to inauthenticity as greater strain and alienation is experienced (Ragins, 2008; Rood et al., 2017).

Authenticity can facilitate higher levels of life satisfaction because expressing important aspects of oneself is critical for optimal psychological functioning, which in the long term promotes a general sense that life has more purpose and is more fulfilling (Ryan & Ryan, 2019; Sutton, 2020). Life satisfaction is an important indicator of general wellbeing that is related to many organisational desirable outcomes such as lower turnover intentions and higher quality job performance (Erdogan et al., 2012). A recent empirical study on LGBT workers finds support that life satisfaction is facilitated by authenticity at work, where authenticity acts as a mediating process linking perceived LGBT supportive practices with life satisfaction (Fletcher & Everly, 2021). Authenticity is likely to mediate the relationship between perceived trans allyship and life satisfaction because it provides a critical pathway through which the validation arising from allyship translates into greater self-expression and better psychological functioning which ultimately facilitates a sense of a good life, well lived.

Hypothesis 4: Perceived trans allyship is indirectly related to life satisfaction via authenticity at work

Method

Participants and procedure

A total of 222 trans workers in the UK responded to an online survey. Respondents were drawn from the data collection provider Prolific where we targeted our sampling criteria to only trans workers (N = 99), and a snowballing method using targeted social media and advertising to trans networks/organisations (N = 123).We utilised this approach because Prolific has a limited pool of trans individuals that met our inclusion criteria (i.e., needed to be in employment, aged between 16 and 75, and be living and working in the UK). Snowballing sampling is common practice in research studies on trans workers’ experiences (e.g., Martinez et al., 2017; Thoroughgood et al., 2021), and is appropriate given the difficulties in gaining access to this minority group (Ozturk & Tatli, 2016).

After removing 26 individuals for incomplete data (10 from prolific and 16 from convenience), a final sample of 196 respondents (88 percent completion rate) was retained. Of these, 35 percent identified along the trans feminine spectrum, 23 percent identified along the trans masculine spectrum, and 42 percent identified along the non-binary spectrum⁷. The majority (90 percent) are white, and 37 percent have managerial responsibility. The average age is 36 years (SD = 12 years), the average organisational tenure is 5 years (SD = 7 years). Nearly 60 percent are employed permanently full-time, and a range of sectors and occupational groups are represented.

Measures⁸

Perceived Trans Allyship: Three items, using a seven-point (1-strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree) Likert scale, capture perceived trans allyship which reflect a similar meaning to the three items in the first study: i) ‘At work, I feel I have allies from my heterosexual/cisgender colleagues’, ii) ‘At work, I feel that my heterosexual/cisgender colleagues would stand up for me as a trans or non-binary person’, and iii) ‘At work, I feel I have the full support from heterosexual/cisgender people in the organisation’. These items were reviewed by subject matter experts within trans inclusion practice and trans advocacy organisations before finalising the survey. Inter-item reliability is α = .92.

Psychological Safety: The seven-item psychological safety scale by Edmondson (1999) is adapted to focus on the organisation, for example ‘No-one in this organisation would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts’, using a seven-point (1-strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree) Likert scale. Inter-item reliability is α = .85.

Authenticity at Work: The individual authenticity measure by Van den Bosch and Taris (2014) assesses three dimensions of authenticity at work⁹. Each dimension is captured with two items; the authentic living items reflects authenticity (e.g., I was true to myself at work in most situations’) whereas the self-alienation (e.g., ‘At work, I felt out of touch with the “real me”’) and accepting external influence (e.g., ‘At work, I felt the need to do what others expect me to do’) items reflect inauthenticity. Respondents rate each item, focusing on the past four weeks, on a seven-point (1 –did not describe me to 7 – described me very well) scale. Inter-item reliability is α =.82.

Work Engagement: The UWES-9 (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) assesses three dimensions (vigour, dedication, absorption) of work engagement¹⁰; we use six items adopting a five point (1-never to 5 – always) Likert scale, with two items capturing each dimension, e.g., ‘At work I feel full of energy’ (vigour), ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’ (dedication), and ‘I get carried away when I’m working’ (absorption). Inter-item reliability is α =.90.

Life Satisfaction: A single item assesses life satisfaction: “In general, how satisfied are you with your life?” using a five point (1- very dissatisfied to 5-very satisfied) Likert scale. Single item life satisfaction scales have been shown to be as valid and reliable as longer measures of the same construct (e.g., Jovanović & Lazić, 2020).

Control Variables: We control for the extent to which the individual is undergoing a transition in the way they present their gender identity (1 – not begun or not intending to transition to 4 – fully completed a transition). The emerging research indicates that where a trans person is on their gender identity journey is related to their sense of authenticity and their work-related attitudes (e.g., Martinez et al., 2017). We also control for overall perceptions of the relational context via four items, using a five-point (1- very poor to 5 – very good) Likert scale, that captures the quality of work relationships with one’s i) line manager, ii) team members, iii) colleagues across the organisation, and iv) customers/clients. Inter-item reliability is α =.77. This helps strengthen discriminant validity given previous research indicates that social support from co-workers and managers are particularly relevant for trans people (e.g., Cancela et al., 2020).

Analytic strategy

Path analysis is conducted with Mplus version 8. Standardised outputs as well as indirect effect testing using bias-corrected bootstrapping protocols with 5,000 samples are utilised within the Mplus coding syntax.

Results

Descriptive statistics and preliminary testing

Table 3 summarises the descriptive statistics for the study two variables. The relationships between perceived trans allyship, psychological safety, authenticity at work, work engagement, and life satisfaction are all significant and in the expected direction.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics (study two).

Variable	Mean	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
1. Extent of Transition	2.45	1.13	–
2. Perceived Quality of Work Relationships	3.99	0.67	.10	(.77)
3. Perceived Trans Allyship	4.72	1.48	.20**	.53***	(.92)
4. Psychological Safety	4.45	1.16	-.01	.57***	.54***	(.85)
5. Authenticity at Work	4.49	1.34	.19**	.51***	.44***	.42***	(.82)
6. Work Engagement	3.05	0.88	-.02	.53***	.35***	.44***	.37***	(.90)
7. Life Satisfaction	3.27	1.12	.02	.27***	.15*	.18*	.32***	.33***	–

Note: N = 196.

* p < .05,.

** p < .01,.

*** p < .001. Reliability estimates in parentheses.

We examine the factor structure of the main latent variables¹¹. The six factor hypothesised model is a good fit of the data¹²: χ² (175) = 287.98, p < .001; RMSEA = .06, CFI = .94, SRMR = .06.

Hypothesis testing

The hypothesised path analytic model is a good fit of the data: χ² (3) = 4.24, p < .05; RMSEA = .05, CFI = .99, SRMR = .02, that explains 41 percent of the variance in safety, 31 percent of variance in authenticity at work, 32 percent of variance in work engagement, and 12 percent of variance in life satisfaction.

Table 4 includes the results of the direct and indirect effects once control variables are accounted for. It shows that there is a significant, positive relationship between perceived trans allyship and psychological safety (β = .35, SE = .07, p < .001) as well as between perceived trans allyship and authenticity at work (β = .21, SE = .09, p < .05). In turn, psychological safety is significantly and positively associated with work engagement (β = .17, SE =.09, p < .05), but authenticity at work is not (β = .12, SE = .07, p > .05). In contrast, authenticity at work is significantly and positively related to life satisfaction (β = .26, SE = .08, p < .01), whereas psychological safety is not (β = −.01, SE = .09, p > .05).

Table 4. Direct and indirect effects linking perceived trans allyship with mediators and outcomes (study two).

Type of Effect	Unstandardized β (SE)	Standardized β	Lower Bound CI	Upper Bound CI
Direct Effects
Perceived Trans Allyship – Psychological Safety	.27 (.06)***	.35	.155	.387
Perceived Trans Allyship – Authenticity at Work	.19 (.08)*	.21	.031	.350
Psychological Safety – Work Engagement	.13 (.06)*	.17	.002	.249
Authenticity at Work – Work Engagement	.08 (.05)	.12	-.015	.178
Psychological Safety – Life Satisfaction	-.01 (.09)	-.01	-.195	.151
Authenticity at Work – Life Satisfaction	.21 (.07)**	.26	.072	.346
Indirect Effects
Perceived Trans Allyship – Psychological Safety – Work Engagement	.04 (.02)*	.06	.001	.078
Perceived Trans Allyship – Authenticity at Work – Work Engagement	.02 (.01)	.03	-.003	.043
Perceived Trans Allyship – Psychological Safety – Life Satisfaction	-.00 (.02)	-.01	-.053	.044
Perceived Trans Allyship – Authenticity at Work – Life Satisfaction	.04 (.02)*	.05	.004	.087

Note: N = 196.

* p < .05,.

** p < .01,.

*** p < .001. Control variables accounted for but not included for ease of interpretation. Extent of transition - related to psychology safety, but + related to authenticity at work; quality of work relationships + related with psychological safety, authenticity at work, and work engagement (but not with life satisfaction).

Table 4 also shows the results of the indirect effect tests linking perceived trans allyship with work engagement and life satisfaction. For work engagement, psychological safety (but not authenticity at work) is a significant mediator: indirect effect = .04, 95 percent confidence interval = .001 to .078). In contrast, authenticity at work (but not psychological safety) is a significant mediator for life satisfaction: indirect effect = .04, 95 percent confidence interval = .004 to .087. The effect sizes are relatively modest. Thus, hypotheses 3 and 4 are supported.

Discussion

Our paper addresses a significant knowledge gap about workplace trans inclusion by examining the concept of trans allyship (a specific form of active support and advocacy for trans workers). Across two studies, we examined a nomological network of antecedents and outcomes, as well as tested and integrated relevant explanatory theories. Study one identifies potential antecedents of trans allyship intentions, showing that a heterosexual, cisgender worker’s level of SDO is negatively related to their intention to enact trans allyship, yet this relationship can be reduced when the person perceives that their organisation has a strong diversity and inclusion climate. In study two, we clarify the potential wellbeing related outcomes of trans allyship perceptions for trans workers and find that perceived trans allyship is positively related to trans workers’ engagement with their work, via psychological safety, and to their satisfaction with life, via authenticity at work.

Turning to wider implications of the research, we find that the extent to which a heterosexual, cisgender person believes that social inequalities and hierarchies should exist (Aiello et al., 2013) is negatively related to their potential to enact trans allyship in the workplace. This may be because those holding such beliefs are more likely to hold strong essentialist gender beliefs and may not be fully aware of their own privilege (Ching et al., 2020; Puckett et al., 2020). This opens the possibility to understand more precisely why those high in SDO would be less willing to enact trans allyship. For example, would these individuals be less likely to enact allyship for a wide range of minority groups, and if so, are the mechanisms different for say women’s allyship (Ching et al., 2020) or Black allyship (Sue et al., 2019). Examining how SDO is related to different types of allyship would clarify the extent to which SDO has broad underpinning mechanisms as per conventional SDT (Aiello et al., 2013; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), or more specific pathways based on the characteristics of the target minority group.

We also show that perceptions of the organisational climate can interact with a person’s belief system to influence their intentions to enact trans allyship. For individuals who have a general tendency to maintain and enhance social inequalities, the organisation’s diversity and inclusion climate can act to suppress these tendencies. This indicates that trait/value activation theories (Avery, 2011) could be used to further explore how individual factors and the organisational environment can intersect in ways that either attenuate or accentuate the potential for trans allyship to occur. The wider diversity literature potentially point to prosocial motivation and traits associated with openness, learning, and intellectual stimulation (e.g., Nelissen et al., 2017) as individual level moderators that could further enhance diversity and inclusion efforts, whereas strength of in-group identity/attachment and prejudicial beliefs (Avery, 2011; McKay & Avery, 2015) could be individual factors that could be activated when environments are particularly homogenous/exclusionary. Moreover, it will be critical to explore other organisational cultural and structural factors that may interact with individual factors to facilitate or hinder trans allyship. Factors such as commitment from top leadership to inclusion strategies (Shore et al., 2018) and voice orientated HRM systems (Beauregard et al., 2018) may facilitate trans allyship whereas factors such as hierarchy enhancing cultures (Aiello et al., 2018) and high levels of gender segregation (Ozturk & Tatli, 2016) may hinder trans allyship. By comparing these different organisational level factors, a more comprehensive view of how HRM can leverage trans allyship will be gained. Additionally, the relative strength of trans voices within the organisational context should also be considered as this may influence the amount of knowledge and awareness about trans inclusion within the workplace (Beauregard et al., 2018; Gut et al., 2018). This opens avenues to explore how trans workers themselves and advocacy groups (such as LGBT staff networks) within the organisation can shape the ways in which allyship can be facilitated and enacted. However, we recognise that when self-professed allies want “to not “start any trouble” or disrupt systems of oppression” so assign responsibility for direct action to minoritised groups, a social justice agenda is unlikely to be advanced (Sumerau et al., 2021, p. 369). Accordingly, individual behaviours of trans allyship may be an important part of the picture, there also is a need for other practice and action targeted at organisational and societal change.

Another important implication is that we clarify how the potential outcomes of trans allyship for trans workers, and their pathways, can be differentiated. We find that psychological safety is a mediating process through which perceived trans allyship relates to work engagement whereas authenticity at work is a mediating process that links perceived allyship with life satisfaction. This extends existing knowledge about psychological safety and authenticity as it indicates that theoretical explanations related to these concepts can be integrated to expand potential processes and outcomes of trans allyship. For instance, there may be some common outcomes such as in-role performance (Frazier et al., 2017; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014), yet distinct differences– for instance authenticity may more likely relate to intrinsic motivational processes/outcomes (Ryan & Ryan, 2019) whereas psychological safety may be more related to knowledge sharing and voice (Edmondson, 1999). Therefore, applying social determination and voice theories may help advance our understanding about the effects of trans allyship. Potential moderators/boundary conditions could also be explored in more depth in a way that bridges the gap between the mainstream theories mentioned above and what we empirically know about trans inclusion. The limited literature on trans workers points to the line manager as well as the expertise/preparedness of HRM as being particularly important for transitioning in the workplace (Marvell et al., 2017; Ozturk & Tatli, 2016). Therefore, examining the influence of HRM specialists and line managers within a broader framework will be useful.

Taking all the above into consideration, we believe there are three important areas for future HRM research on allyship¹³. The first is to understand the concept of allyship between different actors and stakeholders, and whether there are inclusions/exclusions regarding who allyship is supposed to focus on. Comparing how different stakeholders, such as HR managers, diversity and inclusion specialists, and senior executives/management, conceptualise allyship, its practices, and who it covers will help identify where common ground exists and where there are fault-lines that need to be navigated. Secondly, we encourage future research to incorporate both personal/individual factors and organisational/contextual factors as potential antecedents, and to clarify how these factors dynamically interact to influence allyship for different groups. We specifically advocate a focus on the role of HR and diversity/inclusion practitioners in shaping those dynamics whilst considering the backdrop of socio-political tensions, such as when gender/inclusion critical voices are particularly prominent in societal discourse, and where there may be antagonism towards inclusion efforts from within the organisation itself. The final area to focus on is the lived experience of those for whom allyship is aiming to support. Our study highlights the need to do substantially more to understand the wider range of outcomes and impacts for minority individuals/groups. By delving deeper into the lived experience, particularly over time and across different minority groups, we will develop a more sophisticated and nuanced picture that also uncovers potential negative side effects, for example when allyship becomes a performative tokenistic act.

Limitations and areas for future research

Although we utilise a quasi-experimental approach for study one and include important control variables in both studies, the data in this paper is cross-sectional. Longitudinal studies would be important for clarifying causal relationships. Sampling both trans and cisgender employees within the same organisation would also strengthen methodological rigour. Moreover, we focus specifically on UK workers in this paper, which may limit generalisability¹⁴.

Gender identity and expression varies, so analysing trans-masculine, trans-feminine, and non-binary individuals as one group may hide important nuances between different gender minorities. Although we did find a statistical difference in the reported experience of authenticity at work between different gender identities, this seemed to be interrelated with where the person was in their transitionary journey. The relationship between allyship and authenticity at work in the model was not majorly influenced by the trans person’s specific gender identity. More research is therefore needed to examine gender identity, transitionary journeys, and authenticity in more depth.

Relatedly, study one only explores the antecedents of allyship amongst cisgender heterosexual people. We decided to focus on cisgender, heterosexual workers given that social identity theory would position these individuals as dominant ingroup members in this context. However, further research looking at cisgender, lesbian/gay/bisexual people would help to develop a deeper understanding of the dynamics of trans-allyship, especially as LBG people cannot be assumed to be automatic allies and supporters of trans people (Ozturk et al., 2020). Moreover, the scenario in study one asks respondents to consider someone transitioning to the same gender as them. Exploring an alternative scenario where participants consider someone transitioning to a different gender to them – including non-binary examples – would give additional insight.

Lastly, the concepts of allyship (i.e., more about a set of behaviours) and ally (i.e., more about an identity and set of values/motives) are not clearly differentiated, in the literature nor in practice. Moreover, there is no universally agreed upon set of behaviours that allyship reflects in practice. Future research should explore the nuances in how these concepts are defined, operationalised, and utilised in practice, and what implications each has for enabling trans inclusion via specific behaviours and identifications/attitudes/motives.

Practical implications

There is value in developing trans allyship within the workplace. Initiatives may include formal programmes that have a understanding of what it means to act as an ally in the workplace; diversity training where there is a focus on educating people about the variety of gender identities and the expressions of these in the workplace; awareness raising about what being trans in the workplace is like, for example through ‘lunch and learn’ sessions; and showing visible signals of solidarity such as supporting trans day of visibility.

To facilitate allyship, focus should be on creating and sustaining a strong diversity and inclusion climate. This will help promote allyship even in individuals who may not be predisposed to be an ally to trans people. To achieve this, HR practitioners should modify recruitment, promotion, and talent management practices to not only increase diversity and equality of opportunity but also to strengthen justice, fairness, and belonging. HR practitioners should also evaluate all HRM policies against a set of inclusion criteria and include more specific elements within these that cater for the needs of trans workers. Involving trans workers in setting these criteria and listening to what they would like to see change in the organisation will be particularly important, or at least seeking out trans-inclusive/trans-specific organisations who can offer external expertise and experience. Leadership is also crucial for promoting changes within the organisational climate, and so HR practitioners should focus on enabling and empowering managers to develop a stronger diversity and inclusion climate in their teams.

To increase the likelihood that trans allyship initiatives will have positive effects on trans workers, HR professionals can also influence psychological safety and authenticity at work. Psychological safety can be facilitated by enforcing anti-discrimination policies which clearly set out what is unacceptable conduct with examples and consequences of behaviours. Enabling authenticity can be achieved through ensuring all HRM policies, including dress code, absence, and family policies, consider a range of gender identities and gender expressions; and by encouraging strong role models in the organisation that can visibly show a diversity of gender identities and expressions within the workplace.

Conclusion

Although there has been growing interest in how best to support the inclusion of LGBT employees within the workplace, trans individuals have been neglected. Allyship is an emerging concept that could be applied to better understand and support these efforts. Our paper advances a new theoretical model of trans allyship intentions and perceptions. By conducting two complementary studies, we examine a broad nomological network that considers antecedents (such as diversity and inclusion climate), outcomes (such as life satisfaction), and mediating/moderating mechanisms (such as authenticity and social dominance). Future research can take this model further by considering a wider range of motivational, contextual, and relational factors, and through utilising longitudinal studies across differing cultural/legal contexts. We also articulate three specific areas (understanding perspectives of different stakeholders, examine both individual and contextual factors together, focus on the lived experience of minoritised groups) to focus on to advance our knowledge about allyship within the HRM literature.

Data accessibility statement

Data available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the CIPD for supporting this work. This paper draws on two surveys that are part of a wider project and report on LGBT working lives commissioned by the CIPD. Particular thanks goes to Mel Green, Jill Miller, and Ed Houghton who were involved in various stages of this research. Data can be requested from the corresponding author.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 We define trans people as those who ‘live their lives identifying as and expressing a different gender than the one assigned to them at birth’, including non-binary identities (Spade, 2008, p. 752).

2 Please see our supplementary information document that provides contextualisation to the UK specifically.

3 LGBTQ is also used as an acronym for LGBT, the Q stands for queer.

4 Cisgender refers to people whose sense of personal gender identity corresponds with the gender they were assigned at birth.

5 Full list of the items for these measures can be found in the supplementary information document

6 This is a better fit than two (Δχ²[2] = 346.52, p < .001) and one factor (Δχ²[3] = 1060.37, p < .001) solutions.

7 Although transgender (trans) is a commonly used umbrella term, it does represent different identity spectrums within it. Trans-masculine people are those generally assigned female at birth but who identify with masculinity to a greater extent than femininity. Trans-feminine are those generally assigned male at birth but who identify with femininity to a greater extent than masculinity. Non-binary are those whose gender identity sits outside of the gender binary. They may be neither or both male and/or male and their gender identity may be fluid. All of the above are gender identities in their own right and the terms represent a spectrum of gendered positions.

8 Full list of the items for these measures can be found in the supplementary information document

9 Given authenticity at work is a higher order factor connoting three inter-related dimensions, we conducted CFA tests and find that the three factor solution is a good fit of the data: χ² (6) = 11.08, p > .05; RMSEA = .07, CFI = .99, SRMR = .02.; and a better fit than two factor and one factor alternatives: Δχ²(2) = 38.30, p < .001 and Δχ²(3) = 98.301, p < .001, respectively. All three of the authenticity dimensions are highly correlated with each other (r = .40 to .66).

10 Given work engagement is a higher order factor connoting three inter-related dimensions, we conducted CFA tests and find that the three factor solution is a good fit: χ² (6) = 12.42, p > .05; RMSEA = .07, CFI = .99, SRMR = .02.; and a better fit than two factor and one factor alternatives: Δχ²(2) = 28.91, p < .001 and Δχ²(3) = 60.83, p < .001, respectively. All three of the work engagement dimensions are highly correlated with each other (r = .76 to .82).

11 For sake of parsimony and power, the constructs of authenticity at work and work engagement are represented by their constituent dimensions whereas the other constructs are represented by their respective items (with the one item of life satisfaction fixed to one).

12 We test this against three alternative models: i) with quality of work relationships and perceived allyship as one factor; ii) with psychological safety and perceived allyship as one factor; iii) with authenticity at work and perceived allyship as one factor; and iv) with authenticity at work and psychological safety as one factor. Each of these alternatives is a significantly poorer fit: i) χ² (5) = 181.73, p < .001; ii) χ² (5) = 239.95, p < .001; iii) χ² (5) = 112.32, p < .001; and iv) Δχ²(5) = 99.98, p < .001.

13 Thank you to an anonymous reviewer and the associate editor for suggesting we develop a stronger critically reflective research agenda

14 We feel it is important to contextualise the findings and implications of this research, and therefore we provide a detailed discussion of the UK political and legal landscape for trans workers, as well as international and cross-cultural considerations, as a separate supplementary information document to this paper.